Background: Despite the rise in utilization of PICC lines, few studies have addressed complications experienced by patients following PICC placement, especially subsequent to discharge from the inpatient setting.

Dr. Cooke is a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Background: Despite the rise in utilization of PICC lines, few studies have addressed complications experienced by patients following PICC placement, especially subsequent to discharge from the inpatient setting.

Dr. Cooke is a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Background: Despite the rise in utilization of PICC lines, few studies have addressed complications experienced by patients following PICC placement, especially subsequent to discharge from the inpatient setting.

Dr. Cooke is a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Saad Z. Usmani, MD, FACP, discusses a new treatment option for newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible patients with multiple myeloma.

Article includes:

• An important option for patients with multiple myeloma
• Details on the phase 3 trial
• Efficacy and safety profile

Saad Z. Usmani, MD, FACP, discusses a new treatment option for newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible patients with multiple myeloma.

Article includes:

• An important option for patients with multiple myeloma
• Details on the phase 3 trial
• Efficacy and safety profile

Saad Z. Usmani, MD, FACP, discusses a new treatment option for newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible patients with multiple myeloma.

Article includes:

• An important option for patients with multiple myeloma
• Details on the phase 3 trial
• Efficacy and safety profile

Since 2005 the government website Hospital Compare has publicly reported quality data on hospitals, with periodic updates of their performance, including specific measures of quality. But how accurately do the ratings reflect a hospital’s actual quality of care, and what do the ratings mean for hospitalists?

Hospital Compare provides searchable, comparable information to consumers on reported quality of care data submitted by more than 4,000 Medicare-certified hospitals, along with Veterans Administration and military health system hospitals. It is designed to allow consumers to select hospitals and directly compare their mortality, complication, infection, and other performance measures on conditions such as heart attacks, heart failure, pneumonia, and surgical outcomes.

The Overall Hospital Quality Star Ratings, which began in 2016, combine data from more than 50 quality measures publicly reported on Hospital Compare into an overall rating of one to five stars for each hospital. These ratings are designed to enhance and supplement existing quality measures with a more “customer-centric” measure that makes it easier for consumers to act on the information. Obviously, this would be helpful to consumers who feel overwhelmed by the volume of data on the Hospital Compare website, and by the complexity of some of the measures.

A posted call in spring 2019 by CMS for public comment on possible methodological changes to the Overall Hospital Quality Star Ratings received more than 800 comments from 150 different organizations. And this past summer, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services decided to delay posting the refreshed Star Ratings in its Hospital Compare data preview reports for July 2019. The agency says it intends to release the updated information in early 2020. Meanwhile, the reported data – particularly the overall star ratings – continue to generate controversy for the hospital field.
 

Hospitalists’ critical role

Hospitalists are not rated individually on Hospital Compare, but they play important roles in the quality of care their hospital provides – and thus ultimately the hospital’s publicly reported rankings. Hospitalists typically are not specifically incentivized or penalized for their hospital’s performance, but this does happen in some cases.

“Hospital administrators absolutely take note of their hospital’s star ratings. These are the people hospitalists work for, and this is definitely top of their minds,” said Kate Goodrich, MD, MHS, director of the Center for Clinical Standards and Quality at CMS. “I recently spoke at an SHM annual conference and every question I was asked was about hospital ratings and the star system,” noted Dr. Goodrich, herself a practicing hospitalist at George Washington University Medical Center in Washington.

The government’s aim for Hospital Compare is to give consumers easy-to-understand indicators of the quality of care provided by hospitals, especially where they might have a choice of hospitals, such as for an elective surgery. Making that information public is also viewed as a motivator to help drive improvements in hospital performance, Dr. Goodrich said.

“In terms of what we measure, we try to make sure it’s important to patients and to clinicians. We have frontline practicing physicians, patients, and families advising us, along with methodologists and PhD researchers. These stakeholders tell us what is important to measure and why,” she said. “Hospitals and all health providers need more actionable and timely data to improve their quality of care, especially if they want to participate in accountable care organizations. And we need to make the information easy to understand.”

Dr. Goodrich sees two main themes in the public response to its request for comment. “People say the methodology we use to calculate star ratings is frustrating for hospitals, which have found it difficult to model their performance, predict their star ratings, or explain the discrepancies.” Hospitals taking care of sicker patients with lower socioeconomic status also say the ratings unfairly penalize them. “I work in a large urban hospital, and I understand this. They say we don’t take that sufficiently into account in the ratings,” she said.

“While our modeling shows that current ratings highly correlate with performance on individual measures, we have asked for comment on if and how we could adjust for socioeconomic factors. We are actively considering how to make changes to address these concerns,” Dr. Goodrich said.

In August 2019, CMS acknowledged that it plans to change the methodology used to calculate hospital star ratings in early 2021, but has not yet revealed specific details about the nature of the changes. The agency intends to propose the changes through the public rule-making process sometime in 2020.
 

Continuing controversy

The American Hospital Association – which has had strong concerns about the methodology and the usefulness of hospital star ratings – is pushing back on some of the changes to the system being considered by CMS. In its submitted comments, AHA supported only three of the 14 potential star ratings methodology changes being considered. AHA and the American Association of Medical Colleges, among others, have urged taking down the star ratings until major changes can be made.

“When the star ratings were first implemented, a lot of challenges became apparent right away,” said Akin Demehin, MPH, AHA’s director of quality policy. “We began to see that those hospitals that treat more complicated patients and poorer patients tended to perform more poorly on the ratings. So there was something wrong with the methodology. Then, starting in 2018, hospitals began seeing real shifts in their performance ratings when the underlying data hadn’t really changed.”

CMS uses a statistical approach called latent variable modeling. Its underlying assumption is that you can say something about a hospital’s underlying quality based on the data you already have, Mr. Demehin said, but noted “that can be a questionable assumption.” He also emphasized the need for ratings that compare hospitals that are similar in size and model to each other.

Suparna Dutta, MD, division chief, hospital medicine, Rush University, Chicago, said analyses done at Rush showed that the statistical model CMS used in calculating the star ratings was dynamically changing the weighting of certain measures in every release. “That meant one specific performance measure could play an outsized role in determining a final rating,” she said. In particular the methodology inadvertently penalized large hospitals, academic medical centers, and institutions that provide heroic care.

“We fundamentally believe that consumers should have meaningful information about hospital quality,” said Nancy Foster, AHA’s vice president for quality and patient safety policy at AHA. “We understand the complexities of Hospital Compare and the challenges of getting simple information for consumers. To its credit, CMS is thinking about how to do that, and we support them in that effort.”
 

Getting a handle on quality

Hospitalists are responsible for ensuring that their hospitals excel in the care of patients, said Julius Yang, MD, hospitalist and director of quality at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. That also requires keeping up on the primary public ways these issues are addressed through reporting of quality data and through reimbursement policy. “That should be part of our core competencies as hospitalists.”

Some of the measures on Hospital Compare don’t overlap much with the work of hospitalists, he noted. But for others, such as for pneumonia, COPD, and care of patients with stroke, or for mortality and 30-day readmissions rates, “we are involved, even if not directly, and certainly responsible for contributing to the outcomes and the opportunity to add value,” he said.

“When it comes to 30-day readmission rates, do we really understand the risk factors for readmissions and the barriers to patients remaining in the community after their hospital stay? Are our patients stable enough to be discharged, and have we worked with the care coordination team to make sure they have the resources they need? And have we communicated adequately with the outpatient doctor? All of these things are within the wheelhouse of the hospitalist,” Dr. Yang said. “Let’s accept that the readmissions rate, for example, is not a perfect measure of quality. But as an imperfect measure, it can point us in the right direction.”

Jose Figueroa, MD, MPH, hospitalist and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, has been studying for his health system the impact of hospital penalties such as the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program on health equity. In general, hospitalists play an important role in dictating processes of care and serving on quality-oriented committees across multiple realms of the hospital, he said.

“What’s hard from the hospitalist’s perspective is that there don’t seem to be simple solutions to move the dial on many of these measures,” Dr. Figueroa said. “If the hospital is at three stars, can we say, okay, if we do X, Y, and Z, then our hospital will move from three to five stars? Some of these measures are so broad and not in our purview. Which ones apply to me as a hospitalist and my care processes?”

Dr. Dutta sits on the SHM Policy Committee, which has been working to bring these issues to the attention of frontline hospitalists. “Hospitalists are always going to be aligned with their hospital’s priorities. We’re in it to provide high-quality care, but there’s no magic way to do that,” she said.

Hospital Compare measures sometimes end up in hospitalist incentives plans – for example, the readmission penalty rates – even though that is a fairly arbitrary measure and hard to pin to one doctor, Dr. Dutta explained. “If you look at the evidence regarding these metrics, there are not a lot of data to show that the metrics lead to what we really want, which is better care for patients.”

A recent study in the British Medical Journal, for example, examined the association between the penalties on hospitals in the Hospital Acquired Condition Reduction Program and clinical outcome.¹ The researchers concluded that the penalties were not associated with significant change or found to drive meaningful clinical improvement.
 

How can hospitalists engage with Compare?

Dr. Goodrich refers hospitalists seeking quality resources to their local quality improvement organizations (QIO) and to Hospital Improvement Innovation Networks at the regional, state, national, or hospital system level.

One helpful thing that any group of hospitalists could do, added Dr. Figueroa, is to examine the measures closely and determine which ones they think they can influence. “Then look for the hospitals that resemble ours and care for similar patients, based on the demographics. We can then say: ‘Okay, that’s a fair comparison. This can be a benchmark with our peers,’” he said. Then it’s important to ask how your hospital is doing over time on these measures, and use that to prioritize.

“You also have to appreciate that these are broad quality measures, and to impact them you have to do broad quality improvement efforts. Another piece of this is getting good at collecting and analyzing data internally in a timely fashion. You don’t want to wait 2-3 years to find out in Hospital Compare that you’re not performing well. You care about the care you provided today, not 2 or 3 years ago. Without this internal check, it’s impossible to know what to invest in – and to see if things you do are having an impact,” Dr. Figueroa said.

“As physician leaders, this is a real opportunity for us to trigger a conversation with our hospital’s administration around what we went into medicine for in the first place – to improve our patients’ care,” said Dr. Goodrich. She said Hospital Compare is one tool for sparking systemic quality improvement across the hospital – which is an important part of the hospitalist’s job. “If you want to be a bigger star within your hospital, show that level of commitment. It likely would be welcomed by your hospital.”
 

Reference

1. Sankaran R et al. Changes in hospital safety following penalties in the US Hospital Acquired Condition Reduction Program: retrospective cohort study. BMJ. 2019 Jul 3 doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4109.

Since 2005 the government website Hospital Compare has publicly reported quality data on hospitals, with periodic updates of their performance, including specific measures of quality. But how accurately do the ratings reflect a hospital’s actual quality of care, and what do the ratings mean for hospitalists?

Hospital Compare provides searchable, comparable information to consumers on reported quality of care data submitted by more than 4,000 Medicare-certified hospitals, along with Veterans Administration and military health system hospitals. It is designed to allow consumers to select hospitals and directly compare their mortality, complication, infection, and other performance measures on conditions such as heart attacks, heart failure, pneumonia, and surgical outcomes.

The Overall Hospital Quality Star Ratings, which began in 2016, combine data from more than 50 quality measures publicly reported on Hospital Compare into an overall rating of one to five stars for each hospital. These ratings are designed to enhance and supplement existing quality measures with a more “customer-centric” measure that makes it easier for consumers to act on the information. Obviously, this would be helpful to consumers who feel overwhelmed by the volume of data on the Hospital Compare website, and by the complexity of some of the measures.

A posted call in spring 2019 by CMS for public comment on possible methodological changes to the Overall Hospital Quality Star Ratings received more than 800 comments from 150 different organizations. And this past summer, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services decided to delay posting the refreshed Star Ratings in its Hospital Compare data preview reports for July 2019. The agency says it intends to release the updated information in early 2020. Meanwhile, the reported data – particularly the overall star ratings – continue to generate controversy for the hospital field.
 

Hospitalists’ critical role

Hospitalists are not rated individually on Hospital Compare, but they play important roles in the quality of care their hospital provides – and thus ultimately the hospital’s publicly reported rankings. Hospitalists typically are not specifically incentivized or penalized for their hospital’s performance, but this does happen in some cases.

“Hospital administrators absolutely take note of their hospital’s star ratings. These are the people hospitalists work for, and this is definitely top of their minds,” said Kate Goodrich, MD, MHS, director of the Center for Clinical Standards and Quality at CMS. “I recently spoke at an SHM annual conference and every question I was asked was about hospital ratings and the star system,” noted Dr. Goodrich, herself a practicing hospitalist at George Washington University Medical Center in Washington.

The government’s aim for Hospital Compare is to give consumers easy-to-understand indicators of the quality of care provided by hospitals, especially where they might have a choice of hospitals, such as for an elective surgery. Making that information public is also viewed as a motivator to help drive improvements in hospital performance, Dr. Goodrich said.

“In terms of what we measure, we try to make sure it’s important to patients and to clinicians. We have frontline practicing physicians, patients, and families advising us, along with methodologists and PhD researchers. These stakeholders tell us what is important to measure and why,” she said. “Hospitals and all health providers need more actionable and timely data to improve their quality of care, especially if they want to participate in accountable care organizations. And we need to make the information easy to understand.”

Dr. Goodrich sees two main themes in the public response to its request for comment. “People say the methodology we use to calculate star ratings is frustrating for hospitals, which have found it difficult to model their performance, predict their star ratings, or explain the discrepancies.” Hospitals taking care of sicker patients with lower socioeconomic status also say the ratings unfairly penalize them. “I work in a large urban hospital, and I understand this. They say we don’t take that sufficiently into account in the ratings,” she said.

“While our modeling shows that current ratings highly correlate with performance on individual measures, we have asked for comment on if and how we could adjust for socioeconomic factors. We are actively considering how to make changes to address these concerns,” Dr. Goodrich said.

In August 2019, CMS acknowledged that it plans to change the methodology used to calculate hospital star ratings in early 2021, but has not yet revealed specific details about the nature of the changes. The agency intends to propose the changes through the public rule-making process sometime in 2020.
 

Continuing controversy

The American Hospital Association – which has had strong concerns about the methodology and the usefulness of hospital star ratings – is pushing back on some of the changes to the system being considered by CMS. In its submitted comments, AHA supported only three of the 14 potential star ratings methodology changes being considered. AHA and the American Association of Medical Colleges, among others, have urged taking down the star ratings until major changes can be made.

“When the star ratings were first implemented, a lot of challenges became apparent right away,” said Akin Demehin, MPH, AHA’s director of quality policy. “We began to see that those hospitals that treat more complicated patients and poorer patients tended to perform more poorly on the ratings. So there was something wrong with the methodology. Then, starting in 2018, hospitals began seeing real shifts in their performance ratings when the underlying data hadn’t really changed.”

CMS uses a statistical approach called latent variable modeling. Its underlying assumption is that you can say something about a hospital’s underlying quality based on the data you already have, Mr. Demehin said, but noted “that can be a questionable assumption.” He also emphasized the need for ratings that compare hospitals that are similar in size and model to each other.

Suparna Dutta, MD, division chief, hospital medicine, Rush University, Chicago, said analyses done at Rush showed that the statistical model CMS used in calculating the star ratings was dynamically changing the weighting of certain measures in every release. “That meant one specific performance measure could play an outsized role in determining a final rating,” she said. In particular the methodology inadvertently penalized large hospitals, academic medical centers, and institutions that provide heroic care.

“We fundamentally believe that consumers should have meaningful information about hospital quality,” said Nancy Foster, AHA’s vice president for quality and patient safety policy at AHA. “We understand the complexities of Hospital Compare and the challenges of getting simple information for consumers. To its credit, CMS is thinking about how to do that, and we support them in that effort.”
 

Getting a handle on quality

Hospitalists are responsible for ensuring that their hospitals excel in the care of patients, said Julius Yang, MD, hospitalist and director of quality at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. That also requires keeping up on the primary public ways these issues are addressed through reporting of quality data and through reimbursement policy. “That should be part of our core competencies as hospitalists.”

Some of the measures on Hospital Compare don’t overlap much with the work of hospitalists, he noted. But for others, such as for pneumonia, COPD, and care of patients with stroke, or for mortality and 30-day readmissions rates, “we are involved, even if not directly, and certainly responsible for contributing to the outcomes and the opportunity to add value,” he said.

“When it comes to 30-day readmission rates, do we really understand the risk factors for readmissions and the barriers to patients remaining in the community after their hospital stay? Are our patients stable enough to be discharged, and have we worked with the care coordination team to make sure they have the resources they need? And have we communicated adequately with the outpatient doctor? All of these things are within the wheelhouse of the hospitalist,” Dr. Yang said. “Let’s accept that the readmissions rate, for example, is not a perfect measure of quality. But as an imperfect measure, it can point us in the right direction.”

Jose Figueroa, MD, MPH, hospitalist and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, has been studying for his health system the impact of hospital penalties such as the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program on health equity. In general, hospitalists play an important role in dictating processes of care and serving on quality-oriented committees across multiple realms of the hospital, he said.

“What’s hard from the hospitalist’s perspective is that there don’t seem to be simple solutions to move the dial on many of these measures,” Dr. Figueroa said. “If the hospital is at three stars, can we say, okay, if we do X, Y, and Z, then our hospital will move from three to five stars? Some of these measures are so broad and not in our purview. Which ones apply to me as a hospitalist and my care processes?”

Dr. Dutta sits on the SHM Policy Committee, which has been working to bring these issues to the attention of frontline hospitalists. “Hospitalists are always going to be aligned with their hospital’s priorities. We’re in it to provide high-quality care, but there’s no magic way to do that,” she said.

Hospital Compare measures sometimes end up in hospitalist incentives plans – for example, the readmission penalty rates – even though that is a fairly arbitrary measure and hard to pin to one doctor, Dr. Dutta explained. “If you look at the evidence regarding these metrics, there are not a lot of data to show that the metrics lead to what we really want, which is better care for patients.”

A recent study in the British Medical Journal, for example, examined the association between the penalties on hospitals in the Hospital Acquired Condition Reduction Program and clinical outcome.¹ The researchers concluded that the penalties were not associated with significant change or found to drive meaningful clinical improvement.
 

How can hospitalists engage with Compare?

Dr. Goodrich refers hospitalists seeking quality resources to their local quality improvement organizations (QIO) and to Hospital Improvement Innovation Networks at the regional, state, national, or hospital system level.

One helpful thing that any group of hospitalists could do, added Dr. Figueroa, is to examine the measures closely and determine which ones they think they can influence. “Then look for the hospitals that resemble ours and care for similar patients, based on the demographics. We can then say: ‘Okay, that’s a fair comparison. This can be a benchmark with our peers,’” he said. Then it’s important to ask how your hospital is doing over time on these measures, and use that to prioritize.

“You also have to appreciate that these are broad quality measures, and to impact them you have to do broad quality improvement efforts. Another piece of this is getting good at collecting and analyzing data internally in a timely fashion. You don’t want to wait 2-3 years to find out in Hospital Compare that you’re not performing well. You care about the care you provided today, not 2 or 3 years ago. Without this internal check, it’s impossible to know what to invest in – and to see if things you do are having an impact,” Dr. Figueroa said.

“As physician leaders, this is a real opportunity for us to trigger a conversation with our hospital’s administration around what we went into medicine for in the first place – to improve our patients’ care,” said Dr. Goodrich. She said Hospital Compare is one tool for sparking systemic quality improvement across the hospital – which is an important part of the hospitalist’s job. “If you want to be a bigger star within your hospital, show that level of commitment. It likely would be welcomed by your hospital.”
 

Reference

1. Sankaran R et al. Changes in hospital safety following penalties in the US Hospital Acquired Condition Reduction Program: retrospective cohort study. BMJ. 2019 Jul 3 doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4109.

Since 2005 the government website Hospital Compare has publicly reported quality data on hospitals, with periodic updates of their performance, including specific measures of quality. But how accurately do the ratings reflect a hospital’s actual quality of care, and what do the ratings mean for hospitalists?

Hospital Compare provides searchable, comparable information to consumers on reported quality of care data submitted by more than 4,000 Medicare-certified hospitals, along with Veterans Administration and military health system hospitals. It is designed to allow consumers to select hospitals and directly compare their mortality, complication, infection, and other performance measures on conditions such as heart attacks, heart failure, pneumonia, and surgical outcomes.

The Overall Hospital Quality Star Ratings, which began in 2016, combine data from more than 50 quality measures publicly reported on Hospital Compare into an overall rating of one to five stars for each hospital. These ratings are designed to enhance and supplement existing quality measures with a more “customer-centric” measure that makes it easier for consumers to act on the information. Obviously, this would be helpful to consumers who feel overwhelmed by the volume of data on the Hospital Compare website, and by the complexity of some of the measures.

A posted call in spring 2019 by CMS for public comment on possible methodological changes to the Overall Hospital Quality Star Ratings received more than 800 comments from 150 different organizations. And this past summer, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services decided to delay posting the refreshed Star Ratings in its Hospital Compare data preview reports for July 2019. The agency says it intends to release the updated information in early 2020. Meanwhile, the reported data – particularly the overall star ratings – continue to generate controversy for the hospital field.
 

Hospitalists’ critical role

Hospitalists are not rated individually on Hospital Compare, but they play important roles in the quality of care their hospital provides – and thus ultimately the hospital’s publicly reported rankings. Hospitalists typically are not specifically incentivized or penalized for their hospital’s performance, but this does happen in some cases.

“Hospital administrators absolutely take note of their hospital’s star ratings. These are the people hospitalists work for, and this is definitely top of their minds,” said Kate Goodrich, MD, MHS, director of the Center for Clinical Standards and Quality at CMS. “I recently spoke at an SHM annual conference and every question I was asked was about hospital ratings and the star system,” noted Dr. Goodrich, herself a practicing hospitalist at George Washington University Medical Center in Washington.

The government’s aim for Hospital Compare is to give consumers easy-to-understand indicators of the quality of care provided by hospitals, especially where they might have a choice of hospitals, such as for an elective surgery. Making that information public is also viewed as a motivator to help drive improvements in hospital performance, Dr. Goodrich said.

“In terms of what we measure, we try to make sure it’s important to patients and to clinicians. We have frontline practicing physicians, patients, and families advising us, along with methodologists and PhD researchers. These stakeholders tell us what is important to measure and why,” she said. “Hospitals and all health providers need more actionable and timely data to improve their quality of care, especially if they want to participate in accountable care organizations. And we need to make the information easy to understand.”

Dr. Goodrich sees two main themes in the public response to its request for comment. “People say the methodology we use to calculate star ratings is frustrating for hospitals, which have found it difficult to model their performance, predict their star ratings, or explain the discrepancies.” Hospitals taking care of sicker patients with lower socioeconomic status also say the ratings unfairly penalize them. “I work in a large urban hospital, and I understand this. They say we don’t take that sufficiently into account in the ratings,” she said.

“While our modeling shows that current ratings highly correlate with performance on individual measures, we have asked for comment on if and how we could adjust for socioeconomic factors. We are actively considering how to make changes to address these concerns,” Dr. Goodrich said.

In August 2019, CMS acknowledged that it plans to change the methodology used to calculate hospital star ratings in early 2021, but has not yet revealed specific details about the nature of the changes. The agency intends to propose the changes through the public rule-making process sometime in 2020.
 

Continuing controversy

The American Hospital Association – which has had strong concerns about the methodology and the usefulness of hospital star ratings – is pushing back on some of the changes to the system being considered by CMS. In its submitted comments, AHA supported only three of the 14 potential star ratings methodology changes being considered. AHA and the American Association of Medical Colleges, among others, have urged taking down the star ratings until major changes can be made.

“When the star ratings were first implemented, a lot of challenges became apparent right away,” said Akin Demehin, MPH, AHA’s director of quality policy. “We began to see that those hospitals that treat more complicated patients and poorer patients tended to perform more poorly on the ratings. So there was something wrong with the methodology. Then, starting in 2018, hospitals began seeing real shifts in their performance ratings when the underlying data hadn’t really changed.”

CMS uses a statistical approach called latent variable modeling. Its underlying assumption is that you can say something about a hospital’s underlying quality based on the data you already have, Mr. Demehin said, but noted “that can be a questionable assumption.” He also emphasized the need for ratings that compare hospitals that are similar in size and model to each other.

Suparna Dutta, MD, division chief, hospital medicine, Rush University, Chicago, said analyses done at Rush showed that the statistical model CMS used in calculating the star ratings was dynamically changing the weighting of certain measures in every release. “That meant one specific performance measure could play an outsized role in determining a final rating,” she said. In particular the methodology inadvertently penalized large hospitals, academic medical centers, and institutions that provide heroic care.

“We fundamentally believe that consumers should have meaningful information about hospital quality,” said Nancy Foster, AHA’s vice president for quality and patient safety policy at AHA. “We understand the complexities of Hospital Compare and the challenges of getting simple information for consumers. To its credit, CMS is thinking about how to do that, and we support them in that effort.”
 

Getting a handle on quality

Hospitalists are responsible for ensuring that their hospitals excel in the care of patients, said Julius Yang, MD, hospitalist and director of quality at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. That also requires keeping up on the primary public ways these issues are addressed through reporting of quality data and through reimbursement policy. “That should be part of our core competencies as hospitalists.”

Some of the measures on Hospital Compare don’t overlap much with the work of hospitalists, he noted. But for others, such as for pneumonia, COPD, and care of patients with stroke, or for mortality and 30-day readmissions rates, “we are involved, even if not directly, and certainly responsible for contributing to the outcomes and the opportunity to add value,” he said.

“When it comes to 30-day readmission rates, do we really understand the risk factors for readmissions and the barriers to patients remaining in the community after their hospital stay? Are our patients stable enough to be discharged, and have we worked with the care coordination team to make sure they have the resources they need? And have we communicated adequately with the outpatient doctor? All of these things are within the wheelhouse of the hospitalist,” Dr. Yang said. “Let’s accept that the readmissions rate, for example, is not a perfect measure of quality. But as an imperfect measure, it can point us in the right direction.”

Jose Figueroa, MD, MPH, hospitalist and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, has been studying for his health system the impact of hospital penalties such as the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program on health equity. In general, hospitalists play an important role in dictating processes of care and serving on quality-oriented committees across multiple realms of the hospital, he said.

“What’s hard from the hospitalist’s perspective is that there don’t seem to be simple solutions to move the dial on many of these measures,” Dr. Figueroa said. “If the hospital is at three stars, can we say, okay, if we do X, Y, and Z, then our hospital will move from three to five stars? Some of these measures are so broad and not in our purview. Which ones apply to me as a hospitalist and my care processes?”

Dr. Dutta sits on the SHM Policy Committee, which has been working to bring these issues to the attention of frontline hospitalists. “Hospitalists are always going to be aligned with their hospital’s priorities. We’re in it to provide high-quality care, but there’s no magic way to do that,” she said.

Hospital Compare measures sometimes end up in hospitalist incentives plans – for example, the readmission penalty rates – even though that is a fairly arbitrary measure and hard to pin to one doctor, Dr. Dutta explained. “If you look at the evidence regarding these metrics, there are not a lot of data to show that the metrics lead to what we really want, which is better care for patients.”

A recent study in the British Medical Journal, for example, examined the association between the penalties on hospitals in the Hospital Acquired Condition Reduction Program and clinical outcome.¹ The researchers concluded that the penalties were not associated with significant change or found to drive meaningful clinical improvement.
 

How can hospitalists engage with Compare?

Dr. Goodrich refers hospitalists seeking quality resources to their local quality improvement organizations (QIO) and to Hospital Improvement Innovation Networks at the regional, state, national, or hospital system level.

One helpful thing that any group of hospitalists could do, added Dr. Figueroa, is to examine the measures closely and determine which ones they think they can influence. “Then look for the hospitals that resemble ours and care for similar patients, based on the demographics. We can then say: ‘Okay, that’s a fair comparison. This can be a benchmark with our peers,’” he said. Then it’s important to ask how your hospital is doing over time on these measures, and use that to prioritize.

“You also have to appreciate that these are broad quality measures, and to impact them you have to do broad quality improvement efforts. Another piece of this is getting good at collecting and analyzing data internally in a timely fashion. You don’t want to wait 2-3 years to find out in Hospital Compare that you’re not performing well. You care about the care you provided today, not 2 or 3 years ago. Without this internal check, it’s impossible to know what to invest in – and to see if things you do are having an impact,” Dr. Figueroa said.

“As physician leaders, this is a real opportunity for us to trigger a conversation with our hospital’s administration around what we went into medicine for in the first place – to improve our patients’ care,” said Dr. Goodrich. She said Hospital Compare is one tool for sparking systemic quality improvement across the hospital – which is an important part of the hospitalist’s job. “If you want to be a bigger star within your hospital, show that level of commitment. It likely would be welcomed by your hospital.”
 

Reference

1. Sankaran R et al. Changes in hospital safety following penalties in the US Hospital Acquired Condition Reduction Program: retrospective cohort study. BMJ. 2019 Jul 3 doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4109.

CHICAGO – Current dosing recommendations for thyroid replacement during immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy may overshoot the mark, both for patients with preexisting and de novo hypothyroidism.

Kari Oakes/MDedge News

The real-world data, presented by Megan Kristan, MD, at the annual meeting of the American Thyroid Association, refine recommendations for dosing by body weight for levothyroxine in patients receiving checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors stand a good chance of turning the tide against melanoma, some lung cancers, and other malignancies that have long been considered lethal. However, as more patients are exposed to the therapies, endocrinologists are seeing a wave of thyroid abnormalities, and must decide when, and at what doses, to treat hypothyroidism, said Dr. Kristan, a diabetes, endocrinology, and nutrition fellow at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.

Six checkpoint inhibitors are currently approved to hit a variety of molecular targets, and the prevalence of thyroid toxicity and hypothyroidism across the drug class ranges from a reported 9% to 40%, said Dr. Kristan.

The acknowledged thyroid toxicity of these drugs led the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) to issue guidelines advising that oncologists obtain baseline thyroid function tests before initiating checkpoint inhibitors, and that values be rechecked frequently – every 4-6 weeks – during therapy.

The guidelines advise dosing levothyroxine at approximately 1.6 mcg/kg per day, based on ideal patient body weight. The recommendation is limited to patients without risk factors, and approximates full levothyroxine replacement.

However, some patients enter cancer treatment with hypothyroidism, and some develop it de novo after beginning checkpoint inhibitor therapy. It is not known how best to treat each group, said Dr. Kristan.

To help answer that question, she and her collaborators at Georgetown University Hospital, McLean, Va., made use of a database drawn from five hospitals to perform a retrospective chart review. They looked at 822 patients who had received checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and from those patients, they selected 118 who had a diagnosis of hypothyroidism, or who received a prescription for levothyroxine during the 8-year study period.

The investigators assembled all available relevant data for each patient, including thyroid function tests, levothyroxine dosing, type of cancer, and type of therapy. They sorted participants into those who had received a diagnosis of hypothyroidism before or after receiving the first dose of checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

At baseline, 81 patients had preexisting hypothyroidism and were receiving a mean levothyroxine dose of 88.2 mcg. After treatment, the mean dose was 94.3 mcg, a nonsignificant difference. The median dose for this group remained at 88 mcg through treatment.

For the 37 patients who developed hypothyroidism de novo during checkpoint inhibitor therapy, the final observed levothyroxine dose was 71.2 mcg.

The mean age of the patients at baseline was 69 years. About half were women, and 91% were white. Either nivolumab or pembrolizumab was used in 72% of patients, making them the most commonly used checkpoint inhibitors, though 90% of patients received combination therapy. Taken together, melanoma and lung cancer accounted for about two-thirds of the cancers seen.

For both groups, the on-treatment levothyroxine dose was considerably lower than the ASCO-recommended, weight-based dosing, which would have been 122.9 mcg for those with preexisting hypothyroidism and 115.7 mcg for those who developed hypothyroidism on treatment (P less than .001 for both).

Dr. Kristan noted that thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) values for patients with pretreatment hypothyroidism peaked between weeks 12 and 20, though there was no preemptive adjustment of levothyroxine dosing.

For those who developed on-treatment hypothyroidism, TSH values peaked at a series of times, at about weeks 8, 16, and 32. These waves of TSH elevation, she said, support the 4- to 6-week follow-up interval recommended in the ASCO guidelines.

However, she said, patients with de novo hypothyroidism “should not be started on the 1.6-mcg/kg-a-day weight-based dosing.” The cohort with de novo hypothyroidism in Dr. Kristan’s analysis required a daily dose of about 1 mcg/kg, she said. These real-world results support the idea that many patients on checkpoint inhibitors retain some thyroid reserve.

Dr. Kristan said that based on these findings, she and her collaborators recommend monitoring thyroid function every 4-6 weeks for patients taking immune checkpoint inhibitors. Patients with preexisting thyroid disease should not have an empiric adjustment of levothyroxine dose on checkpoint inhibitor initiation. For patients who develop thyroiditis after starting therapy, initiating a dose at 1 mcg/kg per day of ideal body weight is a good place to start, and treatment response should be monitored.

The study was limited by its retrospective nature and the small sample size, acknowledged Dr. Kristan. In addition, there were confounding variables and different frequencies of testing across institutions, and antibody status was not available and may have affected the results. Testing was performable for all participants.

Dr. Kristan said that the analysis opens up areas for further study, such as which patient populations are at risk for developing thyroid toxicity, what baseline characteristics can help predict which patients develop toxicity, and whether particular checkpoint inhibitors are more likely to cause toxicity. In addition, she said, a subset of patients will develop hyperthyroidism on checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and little is known about how to treat that complication.

Dr. Kristan reported no conflicts of interest. The research she presented was completed during her residency at Georgetown University.
 

SOURCE: Kristan M et al. ATA 2019, Oral Abstract 25.

CHICAGO – Current dosing recommendations for thyroid replacement during immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy may overshoot the mark, both for patients with preexisting and de novo hypothyroidism.

Kari Oakes/MDedge News

The real-world data, presented by Megan Kristan, MD, at the annual meeting of the American Thyroid Association, refine recommendations for dosing by body weight for levothyroxine in patients receiving checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors stand a good chance of turning the tide against melanoma, some lung cancers, and other malignancies that have long been considered lethal. However, as more patients are exposed to the therapies, endocrinologists are seeing a wave of thyroid abnormalities, and must decide when, and at what doses, to treat hypothyroidism, said Dr. Kristan, a diabetes, endocrinology, and nutrition fellow at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.

Six checkpoint inhibitors are currently approved to hit a variety of molecular targets, and the prevalence of thyroid toxicity and hypothyroidism across the drug class ranges from a reported 9% to 40%, said Dr. Kristan.

The acknowledged thyroid toxicity of these drugs led the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) to issue guidelines advising that oncologists obtain baseline thyroid function tests before initiating checkpoint inhibitors, and that values be rechecked frequently – every 4-6 weeks – during therapy.

The guidelines advise dosing levothyroxine at approximately 1.6 mcg/kg per day, based on ideal patient body weight. The recommendation is limited to patients without risk factors, and approximates full levothyroxine replacement.

However, some patients enter cancer treatment with hypothyroidism, and some develop it de novo after beginning checkpoint inhibitor therapy. It is not known how best to treat each group, said Dr. Kristan.

To help answer that question, she and her collaborators at Georgetown University Hospital, McLean, Va., made use of a database drawn from five hospitals to perform a retrospective chart review. They looked at 822 patients who had received checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and from those patients, they selected 118 who had a diagnosis of hypothyroidism, or who received a prescription for levothyroxine during the 8-year study period.

The investigators assembled all available relevant data for each patient, including thyroid function tests, levothyroxine dosing, type of cancer, and type of therapy. They sorted participants into those who had received a diagnosis of hypothyroidism before or after receiving the first dose of checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

At baseline, 81 patients had preexisting hypothyroidism and were receiving a mean levothyroxine dose of 88.2 mcg. After treatment, the mean dose was 94.3 mcg, a nonsignificant difference. The median dose for this group remained at 88 mcg through treatment.

For the 37 patients who developed hypothyroidism de novo during checkpoint inhibitor therapy, the final observed levothyroxine dose was 71.2 mcg.

The mean age of the patients at baseline was 69 years. About half were women, and 91% were white. Either nivolumab or pembrolizumab was used in 72% of patients, making them the most commonly used checkpoint inhibitors, though 90% of patients received combination therapy. Taken together, melanoma and lung cancer accounted for about two-thirds of the cancers seen.

For both groups, the on-treatment levothyroxine dose was considerably lower than the ASCO-recommended, weight-based dosing, which would have been 122.9 mcg for those with preexisting hypothyroidism and 115.7 mcg for those who developed hypothyroidism on treatment (P less than .001 for both).

Dr. Kristan noted that thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) values for patients with pretreatment hypothyroidism peaked between weeks 12 and 20, though there was no preemptive adjustment of levothyroxine dosing.

For those who developed on-treatment hypothyroidism, TSH values peaked at a series of times, at about weeks 8, 16, and 32. These waves of TSH elevation, she said, support the 4- to 6-week follow-up interval recommended in the ASCO guidelines.

However, she said, patients with de novo hypothyroidism “should not be started on the 1.6-mcg/kg-a-day weight-based dosing.” The cohort with de novo hypothyroidism in Dr. Kristan’s analysis required a daily dose of about 1 mcg/kg, she said. These real-world results support the idea that many patients on checkpoint inhibitors retain some thyroid reserve.

Dr. Kristan said that based on these findings, she and her collaborators recommend monitoring thyroid function every 4-6 weeks for patients taking immune checkpoint inhibitors. Patients with preexisting thyroid disease should not have an empiric adjustment of levothyroxine dose on checkpoint inhibitor initiation. For patients who develop thyroiditis after starting therapy, initiating a dose at 1 mcg/kg per day of ideal body weight is a good place to start, and treatment response should be monitored.

The study was limited by its retrospective nature and the small sample size, acknowledged Dr. Kristan. In addition, there were confounding variables and different frequencies of testing across institutions, and antibody status was not available and may have affected the results. Testing was performable for all participants.

Dr. Kristan said that the analysis opens up areas for further study, such as which patient populations are at risk for developing thyroid toxicity, what baseline characteristics can help predict which patients develop toxicity, and whether particular checkpoint inhibitors are more likely to cause toxicity. In addition, she said, a subset of patients will develop hyperthyroidism on checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and little is known about how to treat that complication.

Dr. Kristan reported no conflicts of interest. The research she presented was completed during her residency at Georgetown University.
 

SOURCE: Kristan M et al. ATA 2019, Oral Abstract 25.

CHICAGO – Current dosing recommendations for thyroid replacement during immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy may overshoot the mark, both for patients with preexisting and de novo hypothyroidism.

Kari Oakes/MDedge News

The real-world data, presented by Megan Kristan, MD, at the annual meeting of the American Thyroid Association, refine recommendations for dosing by body weight for levothyroxine in patients receiving checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors stand a good chance of turning the tide against melanoma, some lung cancers, and other malignancies that have long been considered lethal. However, as more patients are exposed to the therapies, endocrinologists are seeing a wave of thyroid abnormalities, and must decide when, and at what doses, to treat hypothyroidism, said Dr. Kristan, a diabetes, endocrinology, and nutrition fellow at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.

Six checkpoint inhibitors are currently approved to hit a variety of molecular targets, and the prevalence of thyroid toxicity and hypothyroidism across the drug class ranges from a reported 9% to 40%, said Dr. Kristan.

The acknowledged thyroid toxicity of these drugs led the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) to issue guidelines advising that oncologists obtain baseline thyroid function tests before initiating checkpoint inhibitors, and that values be rechecked frequently – every 4-6 weeks – during therapy.

The guidelines advise dosing levothyroxine at approximately 1.6 mcg/kg per day, based on ideal patient body weight. The recommendation is limited to patients without risk factors, and approximates full levothyroxine replacement.

However, some patients enter cancer treatment with hypothyroidism, and some develop it de novo after beginning checkpoint inhibitor therapy. It is not known how best to treat each group, said Dr. Kristan.

To help answer that question, she and her collaborators at Georgetown University Hospital, McLean, Va., made use of a database drawn from five hospitals to perform a retrospective chart review. They looked at 822 patients who had received checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and from those patients, they selected 118 who had a diagnosis of hypothyroidism, or who received a prescription for levothyroxine during the 8-year study period.

The investigators assembled all available relevant data for each patient, including thyroid function tests, levothyroxine dosing, type of cancer, and type of therapy. They sorted participants into those who had received a diagnosis of hypothyroidism before or after receiving the first dose of checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

At baseline, 81 patients had preexisting hypothyroidism and were receiving a mean levothyroxine dose of 88.2 mcg. After treatment, the mean dose was 94.3 mcg, a nonsignificant difference. The median dose for this group remained at 88 mcg through treatment.

For the 37 patients who developed hypothyroidism de novo during checkpoint inhibitor therapy, the final observed levothyroxine dose was 71.2 mcg.

The mean age of the patients at baseline was 69 years. About half were women, and 91% were white. Either nivolumab or pembrolizumab was used in 72% of patients, making them the most commonly used checkpoint inhibitors, though 90% of patients received combination therapy. Taken together, melanoma and lung cancer accounted for about two-thirds of the cancers seen.

For both groups, the on-treatment levothyroxine dose was considerably lower than the ASCO-recommended, weight-based dosing, which would have been 122.9 mcg for those with preexisting hypothyroidism and 115.7 mcg for those who developed hypothyroidism on treatment (P less than .001 for both).

Dr. Kristan noted that thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) values for patients with pretreatment hypothyroidism peaked between weeks 12 and 20, though there was no preemptive adjustment of levothyroxine dosing.

For those who developed on-treatment hypothyroidism, TSH values peaked at a series of times, at about weeks 8, 16, and 32. These waves of TSH elevation, she said, support the 4- to 6-week follow-up interval recommended in the ASCO guidelines.

However, she said, patients with de novo hypothyroidism “should not be started on the 1.6-mcg/kg-a-day weight-based dosing.” The cohort with de novo hypothyroidism in Dr. Kristan’s analysis required a daily dose of about 1 mcg/kg, she said. These real-world results support the idea that many patients on checkpoint inhibitors retain some thyroid reserve.

Dr. Kristan said that based on these findings, she and her collaborators recommend monitoring thyroid function every 4-6 weeks for patients taking immune checkpoint inhibitors. Patients with preexisting thyroid disease should not have an empiric adjustment of levothyroxine dose on checkpoint inhibitor initiation. For patients who develop thyroiditis after starting therapy, initiating a dose at 1 mcg/kg per day of ideal body weight is a good place to start, and treatment response should be monitored.

The study was limited by its retrospective nature and the small sample size, acknowledged Dr. Kristan. In addition, there were confounding variables and different frequencies of testing across institutions, and antibody status was not available and may have affected the results. Testing was performable for all participants.

Dr. Kristan said that the analysis opens up areas for further study, such as which patient populations are at risk for developing thyroid toxicity, what baseline characteristics can help predict which patients develop toxicity, and whether particular checkpoint inhibitors are more likely to cause toxicity. In addition, she said, a subset of patients will develop hyperthyroidism on checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and little is known about how to treat that complication.

Dr. Kristan reported no conflicts of interest. The research she presented was completed during her residency at Georgetown University.
 

SOURCE: Kristan M et al. ATA 2019, Oral Abstract 25.

CHICAGO – Higher levels of triiodothyronine (T3) were seen in combatants with PTSD, compared with patients whose PTSD arose from other adverse experiences, according to findings from a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Patients with combat-related PTSD had higher levels of free T3 and total T3, compared with control participants who had experienced childhood or sexual abuse or were a wartime refugee without PTSD (FT3, 0.36 pg/mL higher, and total T3, 31.6 ng/mL higher, respectively; P = .0004 and P less than .00001).

“We found statistically higher free T3 and total T3 levels in patients with [combat-related] PTSD, compared with controls,” said Freddy J.K. Toloza, MD, in an interview during a poster session of the annual meeting of the American Thyroid Association.

However, he noted that there were no overall differences in thyroid-stimulating hormone, free tetraiodothyronine (T4), and total T4 levels between individuals with PTSD and the non-PTSD control participants. In addition, though free and total T3 levels were significantly higher for the overall PTSD cohort than for control participants, the differences were driven by the studies that included combat-exposed individuals.

Dr. Toloza and colleagues included 10 observational studies in their final review and meta-analysis. Five studies looked at war veterans; the others examined individuals who had experienced child abuse or sexual abuse, who were refugees, or who were from the general population.

For inclusion, the studies had to report both mean values and standard deviations for standard thyroid-hormone test values in patients with PTSD, compared with a non-PTSD control group. These included 373 patients with PTSD and 301 control participants. Just under half (47%) were women. None of the studies, wrote the investigators, “compared rates of overt/subclinical thyroid disease between groups.”

There are known links between many endocrine disorders and psychiatric conditions, said Dr. Toloza, but the interplay between disordered thyroid function and neuropsychiatric problems is still being examined. Looking at PTSD is important because it’s estimated that 6%-9% of the U.S. adult population has experienced PTSD over the course of a lifetime.

Levels of thyroid hormones in the systematic review and meta-analysis were still within normal range for the participants with PTSD, acknowledged Dr. Toloza, a research fellow in the division of endocrinology and metabolism at University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.

However, even though there was no sign of frank thyroid disease in the PTSD population, the elevated T3 levels seen in the analysis are consistent with other studies showing a correlation between higher T3 levels and more-severe PTSD.

It is not known exactly why significant increases in the levels of total and free T3 were seen only in the combat-exposed PTSD population, Dr. Toloza said. “The type of trauma trigger may influence the adaptive responses to stress and might result in diverse thyroid alterations.”

Elevated catecholamine levels, seen in individuals with PTSD, can increase peripheral conversion of T4 to T3, explained Dr. Toloza. Ongoing catecholamine elevation may account for the isolated elevation in T3 levels in the PTSD population. Beta1-adrenergic blockade is an accepted pharmacologic strategy to help alleviate PTSD symptoms.

Dr. Toloza and coinvestigators did not have access to data that would have allowed them to ascertain what types of injuries were sustained by individuals with combat-related PTSD, but he noted in response to a question, that it would be worthwhile to see whether combatants who were blast exposed had different thyroid hormone values than those who were not, because hypothalamic injury is common in blast. This is a future direction Dr. Toloza wishes to pursue.

“Our findings add to the growing literature suggesting that thyroid function changes may be associated with PTSD,” the investigators wrote, but “further research is needed to ascertain the role of thyroid function alterations in PTSD.”

Dr. Toloza reported no financial disclosures or conflicts of interest.

CHICAGO – Higher levels of triiodothyronine (T3) were seen in combatants with PTSD, compared with patients whose PTSD arose from other adverse experiences, according to findings from a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Patients with combat-related PTSD had higher levels of free T3 and total T3, compared with control participants who had experienced childhood or sexual abuse or were a wartime refugee without PTSD (FT3, 0.36 pg/mL higher, and total T3, 31.6 ng/mL higher, respectively; P = .0004 and P less than .00001).

“We found statistically higher free T3 and total T3 levels in patients with [combat-related] PTSD, compared with controls,” said Freddy J.K. Toloza, MD, in an interview during a poster session of the annual meeting of the American Thyroid Association.

However, he noted that there were no overall differences in thyroid-stimulating hormone, free tetraiodothyronine (T4), and total T4 levels between individuals with PTSD and the non-PTSD control participants. In addition, though free and total T3 levels were significantly higher for the overall PTSD cohort than for control participants, the differences were driven by the studies that included combat-exposed individuals.

Dr. Toloza and colleagues included 10 observational studies in their final review and meta-analysis. Five studies looked at war veterans; the others examined individuals who had experienced child abuse or sexual abuse, who were refugees, or who were from the general population.

For inclusion, the studies had to report both mean values and standard deviations for standard thyroid-hormone test values in patients with PTSD, compared with a non-PTSD control group. These included 373 patients with PTSD and 301 control participants. Just under half (47%) were women. None of the studies, wrote the investigators, “compared rates of overt/subclinical thyroid disease between groups.”

There are known links between many endocrine disorders and psychiatric conditions, said Dr. Toloza, but the interplay between disordered thyroid function and neuropsychiatric problems is still being examined. Looking at PTSD is important because it’s estimated that 6%-9% of the U.S. adult population has experienced PTSD over the course of a lifetime.

Levels of thyroid hormones in the systematic review and meta-analysis were still within normal range for the participants with PTSD, acknowledged Dr. Toloza, a research fellow in the division of endocrinology and metabolism at University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.

However, even though there was no sign of frank thyroid disease in the PTSD population, the elevated T3 levels seen in the analysis are consistent with other studies showing a correlation between higher T3 levels and more-severe PTSD.

It is not known exactly why significant increases in the levels of total and free T3 were seen only in the combat-exposed PTSD population, Dr. Toloza said. “The type of trauma trigger may influence the adaptive responses to stress and might result in diverse thyroid alterations.”

Elevated catecholamine levels, seen in individuals with PTSD, can increase peripheral conversion of T4 to T3, explained Dr. Toloza. Ongoing catecholamine elevation may account for the isolated elevation in T3 levels in the PTSD population. Beta1-adrenergic blockade is an accepted pharmacologic strategy to help alleviate PTSD symptoms.

Dr. Toloza and coinvestigators did not have access to data that would have allowed them to ascertain what types of injuries were sustained by individuals with combat-related PTSD, but he noted in response to a question, that it would be worthwhile to see whether combatants who were blast exposed had different thyroid hormone values than those who were not, because hypothalamic injury is common in blast. This is a future direction Dr. Toloza wishes to pursue.

“Our findings add to the growing literature suggesting that thyroid function changes may be associated with PTSD,” the investigators wrote, but “further research is needed to ascertain the role of thyroid function alterations in PTSD.”

Dr. Toloza reported no financial disclosures or conflicts of interest.

CHICAGO – Higher levels of triiodothyronine (T3) were seen in combatants with PTSD, compared with patients whose PTSD arose from other adverse experiences, according to findings from a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Patients with combat-related PTSD had higher levels of free T3 and total T3, compared with control participants who had experienced childhood or sexual abuse or were a wartime refugee without PTSD (FT3, 0.36 pg/mL higher, and total T3, 31.6 ng/mL higher, respectively; P = .0004 and P less than .00001).

“We found statistically higher free T3 and total T3 levels in patients with [combat-related] PTSD, compared with controls,” said Freddy J.K. Toloza, MD, in an interview during a poster session of the annual meeting of the American Thyroid Association.

However, he noted that there were no overall differences in thyroid-stimulating hormone, free tetraiodothyronine (T4), and total T4 levels between individuals with PTSD and the non-PTSD control participants. In addition, though free and total T3 levels were significantly higher for the overall PTSD cohort than for control participants, the differences were driven by the studies that included combat-exposed individuals.

Dr. Toloza and colleagues included 10 observational studies in their final review and meta-analysis. Five studies looked at war veterans; the others examined individuals who had experienced child abuse or sexual abuse, who were refugees, or who were from the general population.

For inclusion, the studies had to report both mean values and standard deviations for standard thyroid-hormone test values in patients with PTSD, compared with a non-PTSD control group. These included 373 patients with PTSD and 301 control participants. Just under half (47%) were women. None of the studies, wrote the investigators, “compared rates of overt/subclinical thyroid disease between groups.”

There are known links between many endocrine disorders and psychiatric conditions, said Dr. Toloza, but the interplay between disordered thyroid function and neuropsychiatric problems is still being examined. Looking at PTSD is important because it’s estimated that 6%-9% of the U.S. adult population has experienced PTSD over the course of a lifetime.

Levels of thyroid hormones in the systematic review and meta-analysis were still within normal range for the participants with PTSD, acknowledged Dr. Toloza, a research fellow in the division of endocrinology and metabolism at University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.

However, even though there was no sign of frank thyroid disease in the PTSD population, the elevated T3 levels seen in the analysis are consistent with other studies showing a correlation between higher T3 levels and more-severe PTSD.

It is not known exactly why significant increases in the levels of total and free T3 were seen only in the combat-exposed PTSD population, Dr. Toloza said. “The type of trauma trigger may influence the adaptive responses to stress and might result in diverse thyroid alterations.”

Elevated catecholamine levels, seen in individuals with PTSD, can increase peripheral conversion of T4 to T3, explained Dr. Toloza. Ongoing catecholamine elevation may account for the isolated elevation in T3 levels in the PTSD population. Beta1-adrenergic blockade is an accepted pharmacologic strategy to help alleviate PTSD symptoms.

Dr. Toloza and coinvestigators did not have access to data that would have allowed them to ascertain what types of injuries were sustained by individuals with combat-related PTSD, but he noted in response to a question, that it would be worthwhile to see whether combatants who were blast exposed had different thyroid hormone values than those who were not, because hypothalamic injury is common in blast. This is a future direction Dr. Toloza wishes to pursue.

“Our findings add to the growing literature suggesting that thyroid function changes may be associated with PTSD,” the investigators wrote, but “further research is needed to ascertain the role of thyroid function alterations in PTSD.”

Dr. Toloza reported no financial disclosures or conflicts of interest.

Beth Shaz, MD, has started her term as president of AABB (formerly the American Association of Blood Banks). Dr. Shaz, who will be president for the 2019-2020 term, was inaugurated during the 2019 AABB annual meeting. She succeeds Michael Murphy, MD, as president.

Dr. Shaz is the executive vice president and chief medical and scientific officer at the New York Blood Center in New York. She is a scientific member of Biomedical Excellence for Safer Transfusion, an associate editor of Transfusion, and an editorial board member of Blood. She received her medical degree from University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and a bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering from Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y.

AABB also has a new president-elect, David Green. Mr. Green is president and chief executive officer of Vitalant, and he is based in Scottsdale, Ariz. Mr. Green previously led the Vitalant blood services division. Before that, he was president and chief executive officer of Mississippi Valley Regional Blood Center in Davenport, Iowa.

[email protected]

Beth Shaz, MD, has started her term as president of AABB (formerly the American Association of Blood Banks). Dr. Shaz, who will be president for the 2019-2020 term, was inaugurated during the 2019 AABB annual meeting. She succeeds Michael Murphy, MD, as president.

Dr. Shaz is the executive vice president and chief medical and scientific officer at the New York Blood Center in New York. She is a scientific member of Biomedical Excellence for Safer Transfusion, an associate editor of Transfusion, and an editorial board member of Blood. She received her medical degree from University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and a bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering from Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y.

AABB also has a new president-elect, David Green. Mr. Green is president and chief executive officer of Vitalant, and he is based in Scottsdale, Ariz. Mr. Green previously led the Vitalant blood services division. Before that, he was president and chief executive officer of Mississippi Valley Regional Blood Center in Davenport, Iowa.

[email protected]

Beth Shaz, MD, has started her term as president of AABB (formerly the American Association of Blood Banks). Dr. Shaz, who will be president for the 2019-2020 term, was inaugurated during the 2019 AABB annual meeting. She succeeds Michael Murphy, MD, as president.

Dr. Shaz is the executive vice president and chief medical and scientific officer at the New York Blood Center in New York. She is a scientific member of Biomedical Excellence for Safer Transfusion, an associate editor of Transfusion, and an editorial board member of Blood. She received her medical degree from University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and a bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering from Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y.

AABB also has a new president-elect, David Green. Mr. Green is president and chief executive officer of Vitalant, and he is based in Scottsdale, Ariz. Mr. Green previously led the Vitalant blood services division. Before that, he was president and chief executive officer of Mississippi Valley Regional Blood Center in Davenport, Iowa.

[email protected]

WASHINGTON – Early diagnosis and intervention for genetic diseases using the latest carrier screening can allow families to be prepared and informed prior to pregnancy, said Aishwarya Arjunan, MS, MPH, a clinical product specialist for carrier screening at Myriad Women’s Health, part of a diagnostic testing company based in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Piolinfax/Wikimedia Commons/GNU Free Documentation License

“Rare diseases are responsible for 35% of deaths in the first year of life,” she said in a panel discussion at the Rare Diseases and Orphan Products Breakthrough Summit sponsored by the National Organization for Rare Disorders.

Most patients with rare diseases go through a “diagnostic odyssey” lasting an average of 8 years before they receive an accurate diagnosis, she said. During this time, data suggest that they have likely been misdiagnosed three times and have seen more than 10 specialists, she added.

Barriers to genetic screening include limited access to genetics professionals, lack of patient and provider education about screening, issues of insurance coverage and reimbursement, coding challenges, and misperceptions about the perceived impact of screening, noted Jodie Vento, manager of the Center for Rare Disease Therapy at the Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh.

The genetic carrier screening options, often referred to as panethnic expanded carrier screening, represents a change from previous screening protocols based on ethnicity, said Ms. Arjunan. However, guidelines for screening based on ethnicity “misses a significant percentage of pregnancies affected by serious conditions and widens the health disparity gap,” she said.

By contrast, expanded carrier screening allows for standardization of care that gives couples and families information to make decisions and preparations.

Current genetic testing strategies include single gene testing, in which a single gene of interest is tested; multigene panel testing, in which a subset of clinically important genes are tested; whole-exome sequencing, in which the DNA responsible for coding proteins is tested; and whole-genome sequencing, in which the entire human genome is tested for genetic disorders.

Improving access to genetic testing involves a combination of provider education, changes in payer policies, action by advocacy groups, and adjustment of societal guidelines, said Ms. Arjunan. However, the advantages of expanded carrier screening are many and include guiding patients to expert care early and setting up plans for long-term care and follow-up, she noted. In addition, early identification through screening can help patients reduce or eliminate the diagnostic odyssey and connect with advocacy and community groups for support, she concluded.

The presenters had no financial conflicts to disclose.

WASHINGTON – Early diagnosis and intervention for genetic diseases using the latest carrier screening can allow families to be prepared and informed prior to pregnancy, said Aishwarya Arjunan, MS, MPH, a clinical product specialist for carrier screening at Myriad Women’s Health, part of a diagnostic testing company based in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Piolinfax/Wikimedia Commons/GNU Free Documentation License

“Rare diseases are responsible for 35% of deaths in the first year of life,” she said in a panel discussion at the Rare Diseases and Orphan Products Breakthrough Summit sponsored by the National Organization for Rare Disorders.

Most patients with rare diseases go through a “diagnostic odyssey” lasting an average of 8 years before they receive an accurate diagnosis, she said. During this time, data suggest that they have likely been misdiagnosed three times and have seen more than 10 specialists, she added.

Barriers to genetic screening include limited access to genetics professionals, lack of patient and provider education about screening, issues of insurance coverage and reimbursement, coding challenges, and misperceptions about the perceived impact of screening, noted Jodie Vento, manager of the Center for Rare Disease Therapy at the Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh.

The genetic carrier screening options, often referred to as panethnic expanded carrier screening, represents a change from previous screening protocols based on ethnicity, said Ms. Arjunan. However, guidelines for screening based on ethnicity “misses a significant percentage of pregnancies affected by serious conditions and widens the health disparity gap,” she said.

By contrast, expanded carrier screening allows for standardization of care that gives couples and families information to make decisions and preparations.

Current genetic testing strategies include single gene testing, in which a single gene of interest is tested; multigene panel testing, in which a subset of clinically important genes are tested; whole-exome sequencing, in which the DNA responsible for coding proteins is tested; and whole-genome sequencing, in which the entire human genome is tested for genetic disorders.

Improving access to genetic testing involves a combination of provider education, changes in payer policies, action by advocacy groups, and adjustment of societal guidelines, said Ms. Arjunan. However, the advantages of expanded carrier screening are many and include guiding patients to expert care early and setting up plans for long-term care and follow-up, she noted. In addition, early identification through screening can help patients reduce or eliminate the diagnostic odyssey and connect with advocacy and community groups for support, she concluded.

The presenters had no financial conflicts to disclose.

WASHINGTON – Early diagnosis and intervention for genetic diseases using the latest carrier screening can allow families to be prepared and informed prior to pregnancy, said Aishwarya Arjunan, MS, MPH, a clinical product specialist for carrier screening at Myriad Women’s Health, part of a diagnostic testing company based in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Piolinfax/Wikimedia Commons/GNU Free Documentation License

“Rare diseases are responsible for 35% of deaths in the first year of life,” she said in a panel discussion at the Rare Diseases and Orphan Products Breakthrough Summit sponsored by the National Organization for Rare Disorders.

Most patients with rare diseases go through a “diagnostic odyssey” lasting an average of 8 years before they receive an accurate diagnosis, she said. During this time, data suggest that they have likely been misdiagnosed three times and have seen more than 10 specialists, she added.

Barriers to genetic screening include limited access to genetics professionals, lack of patient and provider education about screening, issues of insurance coverage and reimbursement, coding challenges, and misperceptions about the perceived impact of screening, noted Jodie Vento, manager of the Center for Rare Disease Therapy at the Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh.

The genetic carrier screening options, often referred to as panethnic expanded carrier screening, represents a change from previous screening protocols based on ethnicity, said Ms. Arjunan. However, guidelines for screening based on ethnicity “misses a significant percentage of pregnancies affected by serious conditions and widens the health disparity gap,” she said.

By contrast, expanded carrier screening allows for standardization of care that gives couples and families information to make decisions and preparations.

Current genetic testing strategies include single gene testing, in which a single gene of interest is tested; multigene panel testing, in which a subset of clinically important genes are tested; whole-exome sequencing, in which the DNA responsible for coding proteins is tested; and whole-genome sequencing, in which the entire human genome is tested for genetic disorders.

Improving access to genetic testing involves a combination of provider education, changes in payer policies, action by advocacy groups, and adjustment of societal guidelines, said Ms. Arjunan. However, the advantages of expanded carrier screening are many and include guiding patients to expert care early and setting up plans for long-term care and follow-up, she noted. In addition, early identification through screening can help patients reduce or eliminate the diagnostic odyssey and connect with advocacy and community groups for support, she concluded.

The presenters had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A series of case discussions recently engendered discord among colleagues of ours. The conflicts raised questions about systemic biases within our field and their possible ramifications.

The cases discussed, like many in psychiatry, involved patients with severely maladaptive coping skills who lived with punishing friends, had little rewarding purpose, and had dismissive or abusive families. The conflicts involved whether the treating psychiatrists should promote seemingly obvious life choices or whether those perspectives were based in socionormative stereotypes seeped in mistaken traditional values that do not account for the rich array of experiences our patients come from.

One such case involved a seemingly masochistic patient who repeatedly found herself in abusive relationships and whether the psychiatrist should consider criticizing her partner choices. Another case involved a severely suffering veteran who felt paralyzed at home and whether the psychiatrist should encourage employment to diminish isolation. Yet another case involved a suicidal transgender patient who was in despair when feeling little relief after receiving gender-conforming surgery and – whether the psychiatrist should or could discuss perspectives on gender.

Those cases have led to accusations of misunderstanding science on both sides – and questions about the political justifications and consequences of psychiatric recommendations.

The field of psychiatry is appropriately embarrassed by its former association to misogynistic, homophobic, and even racist schools of thought. However, we wonder whether our current attempts at penance are at times discouraging important discussions. In some cases, our lowest-functioning patients living on the fringe of society benefit the most from the stabilizing influences of family, employment, social institutions, or religious worship. This is especially true considering how much social isolation has become an increasing reality of modern life. As such, we worry when colleagues argue that the promotion of common values is inherently suspect.

This problem may be exemplified by the public attacks on Allan Josephson, MD. Dr. Josephson, a child psychiatrist at the University of Louisville (Ky.), contends that he was ostracized and later fired from his position for communicating at a Heritage Foundation forum on his concerns about current recommended treatments and approaches for gender dysphoria. It appears that, despite being a renowned and previously deeply respected expert in the field, his opinions on the subject now go beyond the acceptable discourse of psychiatry. It is not just that the establishment disagrees with him, he allegedly has gone beyond the acceptable bounds of professionalism.

This reaction is surprising from numerous perspectives. First, his opinions would have seemed mainstream to many only a few years ago. Second, there is no large body of scientific evidence that has been generated to confirm that he is promoting an unscientific perspective that should rightly get ostracized by the medical community – such as anti-vaccination. Actually, some evidence suggests that some medical approaches to gender dysphoria have not always ameliorated the distress found in some patients.

After reviewing the evidence on gender reassignment surgery a few years ago, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services concluded: “Based on an extensive assessment of the clinical evidence as described above, there is not enough high-quality evidence to determine whether gender reassignment surgery improves health outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries with gender dysphoria and whether patients most likely to benefit from these types of surgical intervention can be identified prospectively.”

Whether such a diagnosis should exist at all in the DSM is a worthy topic of discussion with inclusive arguments on both sides. Pathologizing gender dysphoria is stigmatizing. At the same time, a diagnosis may permit one to receive assistance for a recognized condition. One may rightfully want to discuss the scientific merit of a diagnosis without the interference of arguments based on political or social ramifications of said diagnosis, despite their obvious existence and import.

One should be able to voice scientific opinions in a fair-minded, nonpolitically biased manner that is not designed to intimidate and harass dissenters. One should note that a debate about the appropriateness of having said diagnosis will bring up many philosophical and deeply uncomfortable questions. Those questions point out the apparent nosologic problems inherent in DSM methodology that are extraordinarily difficult to solve. If psychiatry chooses to produce or dismiss psychiatric diagnoses based on the inherent political inconvenience of said diagnoses, rather than their scientific and medical basis, the entire field will rightly be called into question.

One may deplore the static and at times oppressive nature of cultural biases. However, it should be noted that the ability to safely step outside the supportive structure of family, employment, and social and religious institution is itself a privilege, one in which some our patients do not have the luxury of engaging in. We are concerned that psychiatrists promoting individualism and dismissing conservative principles may, instead, push our most vulnerable patients to more disenfranchised corners of society.

It is not clear to us how we got to this juncture. Part of psychiatric and medical training does involve learning nonjudgmental approaches to human suffering and an identification with individual needs over societal demands. Our suspicion is that a nonjudgmental approach to the understanding of the human condition may be exaggerated into a desire to solve the human condition without challenging patients’ fundamental need for a well-rounded biologic, psychological, and social recovery. It is also possible that our desire to promote utopian hopes for society has blinded us from accepting the idea that, for many of our lowest-functioning patients, fitting in and participating in society can be their best path to recovery.

Psychiatry attempts to define and alleviate the suffering that accompanies some behaviors. As such, psychiatry has always and will always address and confront behaviors that society may condemn. At times, psychiatrists will be in sync or clash with societal trends. Sometimes science will contradict societal wishes. And ultimately, psychiatrists will hopefully make decisions informed in biopsychosocial constructs that best suit the patient in front of them no matter what society may want. In a polarized environment, psychiatry should remind itself that we cannot always or ever fix society, and that maintaining reasonable cultural norms and societal stability – while avoiding the traps of superficial culture wars and utopian visions – is often the wisest path.

Dr. Lehman is an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego. He is codirector of all acute and intensive psychiatric treatment at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in San Diego, where he practices clinical psychiatry. He also is the course director for the UCSD third-year medical student psychiatry clerkship. Dr. Badre is a forensic psychiatrist in San Diego and an expert in correctional mental health. He holds teaching positions at UCSD and the University of San Diego. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com.

A series of case discussions recently engendered discord among colleagues of ours. The conflicts raised questions about systemic biases within our field and their possible ramifications.

The cases discussed, like many in psychiatry, involved patients with severely maladaptive coping skills who lived with punishing friends, had little rewarding purpose, and had dismissive or abusive families. The conflicts involved whether the treating psychiatrists should promote seemingly obvious life choices or whether those perspectives were based in socionormative stereotypes seeped in mistaken traditional values that do not account for the rich array of experiences our patients come from.

One such case involved a seemingly masochistic patient who repeatedly found herself in abusive relationships and whether the psychiatrist should consider criticizing her partner choices. Another case involved a severely suffering veteran who felt paralyzed at home and whether the psychiatrist should encourage employment to diminish isolation. Yet another case involved a suicidal transgender patient who was in despair when feeling little relief after receiving gender-conforming surgery and – whether the psychiatrist should or could discuss perspectives on gender.

Those cases have led to accusations of misunderstanding science on both sides – and questions about the political justifications and consequences of psychiatric recommendations.

The field of psychiatry is appropriately embarrassed by its former association to misogynistic, homophobic, and even racist schools of thought. However, we wonder whether our current attempts at penance are at times discouraging important discussions. In some cases, our lowest-functioning patients living on the fringe of society benefit the most from the stabilizing influences of family, employment, social institutions, or religious worship. This is especially true considering how much social isolation has become an increasing reality of modern life. As such, we worry when colleagues argue that the promotion of common values is inherently suspect.

This problem may be exemplified by the public attacks on Allan Josephson, MD. Dr. Josephson, a child psychiatrist at the University of Louisville (Ky.), contends that he was ostracized and later fired from his position for communicating at a Heritage Foundation forum on his concerns about current recommended treatments and approaches for gender dysphoria. It appears that, despite being a renowned and previously deeply respected expert in the field, his opinions on the subject now go beyond the acceptable discourse of psychiatry. It is not just that the establishment disagrees with him, he allegedly has gone beyond the acceptable bounds of professionalism.

This reaction is surprising from numerous perspectives. First, his opinions would have seemed mainstream to many only a few years ago. Second, there is no large body of scientific evidence that has been generated to confirm that he is promoting an unscientific perspective that should rightly get ostracized by the medical community – such as anti-vaccination. Actually, some evidence suggests that some medical approaches to gender dysphoria have not always ameliorated the distress found in some patients.

After reviewing the evidence on gender reassignment surgery a few years ago, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services concluded: “Based on an extensive assessment of the clinical evidence as described above, there is not enough high-quality evidence to determine whether gender reassignment surgery improves health outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries with gender dysphoria and whether patients most likely to benefit from these types of surgical intervention can be identified prospectively.”

Whether such a diagnosis should exist at all in the DSM is a worthy topic of discussion with inclusive arguments on both sides. Pathologizing gender dysphoria is stigmatizing. At the same time, a diagnosis may permit one to receive assistance for a recognized condition. One may rightfully want to discuss the scientific merit of a diagnosis without the interference of arguments based on political or social ramifications of said diagnosis, despite their obvious existence and import.

One should be able to voice scientific opinions in a fair-minded, nonpolitically biased manner that is not designed to intimidate and harass dissenters. One should note that a debate about the appropriateness of having said diagnosis will bring up many philosophical and deeply uncomfortable questions. Those questions point out the apparent nosologic problems inherent in DSM methodology that are extraordinarily difficult to solve. If psychiatry chooses to produce or dismiss psychiatric diagnoses based on the inherent political inconvenience of said diagnoses, rather than their scientific and medical basis, the entire field will rightly be called into question.

One may deplore the static and at times oppressive nature of cultural biases. However, it should be noted that the ability to safely step outside the supportive structure of family, employment, and social and religious institution is itself a privilege, one in which some our patients do not have the luxury of engaging in. We are concerned that psychiatrists promoting individualism and dismissing conservative principles may, instead, push our most vulnerable patients to more disenfranchised corners of society.

It is not clear to us how we got to this juncture. Part of psychiatric and medical training does involve learning nonjudgmental approaches to human suffering and an identification with individual needs over societal demands. Our suspicion is that a nonjudgmental approach to the understanding of the human condition may be exaggerated into a desire to solve the human condition without challenging patients’ fundamental need for a well-rounded biologic, psychological, and social recovery. It is also possible that our desire to promote utopian hopes for society has blinded us from accepting the idea that, for many of our lowest-functioning patients, fitting in and participating in society can be their best path to recovery.

Psychiatry attempts to define and alleviate the suffering that accompanies some behaviors. As such, psychiatry has always and will always address and confront behaviors that society may condemn. At times, psychiatrists will be in sync or clash with societal trends. Sometimes science will contradict societal wishes. And ultimately, psychiatrists will hopefully make decisions informed in biopsychosocial constructs that best suit the patient in front of them no matter what society may want. In a polarized environment, psychiatry should remind itself that we cannot always or ever fix society, and that maintaining reasonable cultural norms and societal stability – while avoiding the traps of superficial culture wars and utopian visions – is often the wisest path.

Dr. Lehman is an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego. He is codirector of all acute and intensive psychiatric treatment at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in San Diego, where he practices clinical psychiatry. He also is the course director for the UCSD third-year medical student psychiatry clerkship. Dr. Badre is a forensic psychiatrist in San Diego and an expert in correctional mental health. He holds teaching positions at UCSD and the University of San Diego. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com.

A series of case discussions recently engendered discord among colleagues of ours. The conflicts raised questions about systemic biases within our field and their possible ramifications.

The cases discussed, like many in psychiatry, involved patients with severely maladaptive coping skills who lived with punishing friends, had little rewarding purpose, and had dismissive or abusive families. The conflicts involved whether the treating psychiatrists should promote seemingly obvious life choices or whether those perspectives were based in socionormative stereotypes seeped in mistaken traditional values that do not account for the rich array of experiences our patients come from.

One such case involved a seemingly masochistic patient who repeatedly found herself in abusive relationships and whether the psychiatrist should consider criticizing her partner choices. Another case involved a severely suffering veteran who felt paralyzed at home and whether the psychiatrist should encourage employment to diminish isolation. Yet another case involved a suicidal transgender patient who was in despair when feeling little relief after receiving gender-conforming surgery and – whether the psychiatrist should or could discuss perspectives on gender.

Those cases have led to accusations of misunderstanding science on both sides – and questions about the political justifications and consequences of psychiatric recommendations.

The field of psychiatry is appropriately embarrassed by its former association to misogynistic, homophobic, and even racist schools of thought. However, we wonder whether our current attempts at penance are at times discouraging important discussions. In some cases, our lowest-functioning patients living on the fringe of society benefit the most from the stabilizing influences of family, employment, social institutions, or religious worship. This is especially true considering how much social isolation has become an increasing reality of modern life. As such, we worry when colleagues argue that the promotion of common values is inherently suspect.

This problem may be exemplified by the public attacks on Allan Josephson, MD. Dr. Josephson, a child psychiatrist at the University of Louisville (Ky.), contends that he was ostracized and later fired from his position for communicating at a Heritage Foundation forum on his concerns about current recommended treatments and approaches for gender dysphoria. It appears that, despite being a renowned and previously deeply respected expert in the field, his opinions on the subject now go beyond the acceptable discourse of psychiatry. It is not just that the establishment disagrees with him, he allegedly has gone beyond the acceptable bounds of professionalism.

This reaction is surprising from numerous perspectives. First, his opinions would have seemed mainstream to many only a few years ago. Second, there is no large body of scientific evidence that has been generated to confirm that he is promoting an unscientific perspective that should rightly get ostracized by the medical community – such as anti-vaccination. Actually, some evidence suggests that some medical approaches to gender dysphoria have not always ameliorated the distress found in some patients.

After reviewing the evidence on gender reassignment surgery a few years ago, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services concluded: “Based on an extensive assessment of the clinical evidence as described above, there is not enough high-quality evidence to determine whether gender reassignment surgery improves health outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries with gender dysphoria and whether patients most likely to benefit from these types of surgical intervention can be identified prospectively.”

Whether such a diagnosis should exist at all in the DSM is a worthy topic of discussion with inclusive arguments on both sides. Pathologizing gender dysphoria is stigmatizing. At the same time, a diagnosis may permit one to receive assistance for a recognized condition. One may rightfully want to discuss the scientific merit of a diagnosis without the interference of arguments based on political or social ramifications of said diagnosis, despite their obvious existence and import.

One should be able to voice scientific opinions in a fair-minded, nonpolitically biased manner that is not designed to intimidate and harass dissenters. One should note that a debate about the appropriateness of having said diagnosis will bring up many philosophical and deeply uncomfortable questions. Those questions point out the apparent nosologic problems inherent in DSM methodology that are extraordinarily difficult to solve. If psychiatry chooses to produce or dismiss psychiatric diagnoses based on the inherent political inconvenience of said diagnoses, rather than their scientific and medical basis, the entire field will rightly be called into question.

One may deplore the static and at times oppressive nature of cultural biases. However, it should be noted that the ability to safely step outside the supportive structure of family, employment, and social and religious institution is itself a privilege, one in which some our patients do not have the luxury of engaging in. We are concerned that psychiatrists promoting individualism and dismissing conservative principles may, instead, push our most vulnerable patients to more disenfranchised corners of society.

It is not clear to us how we got to this juncture. Part of psychiatric and medical training does involve learning nonjudgmental approaches to human suffering and an identification with individual needs over societal demands. Our suspicion is that a nonjudgmental approach to the understanding of the human condition may be exaggerated into a desire to solve the human condition without challenging patients’ fundamental need for a well-rounded biologic, psychological, and social recovery. It is also possible that our desire to promote utopian hopes for society has blinded us from accepting the idea that, for many of our lowest-functioning patients, fitting in and participating in society can be their best path to recovery.

Psychiatry attempts to define and alleviate the suffering that accompanies some behaviors. As such, psychiatry has always and will always address and confront behaviors that society may condemn. At times, psychiatrists will be in sync or clash with societal trends. Sometimes science will contradict societal wishes. And ultimately, psychiatrists will hopefully make decisions informed in biopsychosocial constructs that best suit the patient in front of them no matter what society may want. In a polarized environment, psychiatry should remind itself that we cannot always or ever fix society, and that maintaining reasonable cultural norms and societal stability – while avoiding the traps of superficial culture wars and utopian visions – is often the wisest path.

Dr. Lehman is an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego. He is codirector of all acute and intensive psychiatric treatment at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in San Diego, where he practices clinical psychiatry. He also is the course director for the UCSD third-year medical student psychiatry clerkship. Dr. Badre is a forensic psychiatrist in San Diego and an expert in correctional mental health. He holds teaching positions at UCSD and the University of San Diego. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com.

A qualitative investigation based on interviews with successful adults with ADHD identified six core themes that are positive aspects of ADHD.

Under a phenomenology framework, purposive sampling was used to enroll six successful male participants with ADHD diagnoses. The participants were interviewed in an open-ended way and were assessed with theme content analysis, reported Jane Ann Sedgwick, a PhD candidate within the MRC Social, Genetic & Developmental Psychiatry Center at King’s College London, and coauthors. The six core themes identified were cognitive dynamism, courage, energy, humanity, resilience, and transcendence. They then compared those themes with attributes cataloged in a handbook by Christopher Petersen and Marten E.P. Seligman (Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification. Washington: American Psychological Association and Oxford University Press, 2004). The study was published in ADHD: Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorders.

Because energy and cognitive dynamism as discussed in the present research were not cataloged in that handbook, they were unique to ADHD, according to Ms. Sedgwick and coauthors. The theme of energy described “participants’ reports about internal experiences and capacity for action,” with subthemes of spirit, which embraces higher aspects of self, sense of purpose, and meaning in life; psychological energy, including drive and volition; and physical energy, which can manifest as interest in and enjoyment of activities such as sports. Meanwhile, cognitive dynamism describes the “ceaseless mental activity that was reported by all participants,” including subthemes of divergent thinking, hyperfocus, creativity, and curiosity.

Limitations of the study included the shortcomings within the phenomenological framework, which requires participants who are capable of being articulate, expressive, and reflective. Another is the small sample size and absence of female participants.

“Too often people with lived experience hear about ADHD in relation to deficits, functional impairments, and associations with substance misuse, criminality, or other disadvantages on almost every level of life (school, work, relationships),” Ms. Sedgwick and her coauthors wrote. “This study affirms the positive human qualities, assets, and attributes in ADHD that can promote high functioning and flourishing.”

[email protected]

A qualitative investigation based on interviews with successful adults with ADHD identified six core themes that are positive aspects of ADHD.

Under a phenomenology framework, purposive sampling was used to enroll six successful male participants with ADHD diagnoses. The participants were interviewed in an open-ended way and were assessed with theme content analysis, reported Jane Ann Sedgwick, a PhD candidate within the MRC Social, Genetic & Developmental Psychiatry Center at King’s College London, and coauthors. The six core themes identified were cognitive dynamism, courage, energy, humanity, resilience, and transcendence. They then compared those themes with attributes cataloged in a handbook by Christopher Petersen and Marten E.P. Seligman (Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification. Washington: American Psychological Association and Oxford University Press, 2004). The study was published in ADHD: Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorders.

Because energy and cognitive dynamism as discussed in the present research were not cataloged in that handbook, they were unique to ADHD, according to Ms. Sedgwick and coauthors. The theme of energy described “participants’ reports about internal experiences and capacity for action,” with subthemes of spirit, which embraces higher aspects of self, sense of purpose, and meaning in life; psychological energy, including drive and volition; and physical energy, which can manifest as interest in and enjoyment of activities such as sports. Meanwhile, cognitive dynamism describes the “ceaseless mental activity that was reported by all participants,” including subthemes of divergent thinking, hyperfocus, creativity, and curiosity.

Limitations of the study included the shortcomings within the phenomenological framework, which requires participants who are capable of being articulate, expressive, and reflective. Another is the small sample size and absence of female participants.

“Too often people with lived experience hear about ADHD in relation to deficits, functional impairments, and associations with substance misuse, criminality, or other disadvantages on almost every level of life (school, work, relationships),” Ms. Sedgwick and her coauthors wrote. “This study affirms the positive human qualities, assets, and attributes in ADHD that can promote high functioning and flourishing.”

[email protected]

A qualitative investigation based on interviews with successful adults with ADHD identified six core themes that are positive aspects of ADHD.

Under a phenomenology framework, purposive sampling was used to enroll six successful male participants with ADHD diagnoses. The participants were interviewed in an open-ended way and were assessed with theme content analysis, reported Jane Ann Sedgwick, a PhD candidate within the MRC Social, Genetic & Developmental Psychiatry Center at King’s College London, and coauthors. The six core themes identified were cognitive dynamism, courage, energy, humanity, resilience, and transcendence. They then compared those themes with attributes cataloged in a handbook by Christopher Petersen and Marten E.P. Seligman (Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification. Washington: American Psychological Association and Oxford University Press, 2004). The study was published in ADHD: Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorders.

Because energy and cognitive dynamism as discussed in the present research were not cataloged in that handbook, they were unique to ADHD, according to Ms. Sedgwick and coauthors. The theme of energy described “participants’ reports about internal experiences and capacity for action,” with subthemes of spirit, which embraces higher aspects of self, sense of purpose, and meaning in life; psychological energy, including drive and volition; and physical energy, which can manifest as interest in and enjoyment of activities such as sports. Meanwhile, cognitive dynamism describes the “ceaseless mental activity that was reported by all participants,” including subthemes of divergent thinking, hyperfocus, creativity, and curiosity.

Limitations of the study included the shortcomings within the phenomenological framework, which requires participants who are capable of being articulate, expressive, and reflective. Another is the small sample size and absence of female participants.

“Too often people with lived experience hear about ADHD in relation to deficits, functional impairments, and associations with substance misuse, criminality, or other disadvantages on almost every level of life (school, work, relationships),” Ms. Sedgwick and her coauthors wrote. “This study affirms the positive human qualities, assets, and attributes in ADHD that can promote high functioning and flourishing.”

[email protected]